Tuesday, October 31, 2006

I just received a phone call that was, to say the least, a bit flummoxing.

For those of you who are familiar with San Francisco, one of our most notable (or notorious) icons is The Sisters of Perpetual Indulgence. Over the twenty-five-plus years they've been in existence, the Sisters have raised hundreds of thousands of dollars and distributed it to a veritable galaxy of organizations both inside and outside the gay community. They have been one of the stalwarts of the Castro, always ready to step forward in time of need; this week, for example, they're hosting a children's Halloween celebration, a community fundraising event, and several self-defense classes and seminars in response to a recent upswing in crimes in the Castro.

But, all that considered, though, they're men. In drag. In nun drag. And to say that the Sisters are bawdy is a bit like saying Antarctica is cold and barren.

Losing the venue is bad enough. However, according to my phone call, the likelihood is high that the event will be canceled -- not just because of the loss of venue, but because the event is apparently being used for negative pre-election publicity.

I'll update with further details as I receive them.

For now, I'm annoyed that a charity event -- especially one raising money for gay organizations that really need it -- is being yanked because people are exploiting (or afraid of it being exploited) that which is done at a private, admission-only gathering, where people under the age of 18 are not allowed, for political purposes.

However, what will be even more annoying is when the gay leftists who are so eager to drag everyone else's dirty laundry through the streets start screaming about how "unfair" it is for the public to know what's going on at these gatherings.

Shame is something that has never been associated with the Sisters before. Here's hoping that political maneuvering doesn't make this the first time.

UPDATE, 9:00 PM PST: Apparently the Sisters have formally canceled the event. I don't have an official copy yet, but this comment on the Catholic-oriented blog that first publicized the connection purports to have both the initial and final statements from the Sisters.

Because of the efforts of such groups as the Komen Foundation, awareness of breast cancer -- as well as the amount of resources directed towards preventing and fighting it -- has skyrocketed in recent years. While breast cancer still ends the life of far too many women, early detection and better treatments have significantly increased the number of survivors.

Unfortunately, for the glbt community, the problem extends beyond our moms, sisters, daughters, and other relatives. Because of various risk factors, lesbians are twice to three times more likely to develop breast cancer than straight women -- and less likely to have it detected quickly.

Fortunately, several resources have sprouted, such as the Breast Cancer Emergency Fund here in San Francisco, who, with support from organizations like the Komen Foundation, work to educate lesbians on risks and self-examinations, as well as to provide support and assistance for those battling the disease.

Most students of gay history will tell you that one of the pillars that kept our community from collapsing during the AIDS epidemic was the support and help of our lesbian sisters. They worked tirelessly to care for the sick, raise money for treatments, and speak eloquently in the public square -- all despite the fact that they were one of the groups least affected. Their actions gave us hope and help when we needed it the most.

Focus on the Family policy analyst Jim Pfaff and Lawyer Pat Steadman squared off in a debate over the two measures Monday night.

Focus on the Family is the main supporter of the proposed amendment. Steadman, a longtime gay advocate, helped write the civil unions proposal, known as Proposition I

Pfaff said that if voters approve civil unions it would open the door to gay marriage. "The lawsuits are not going to stop," he said, adding that since 1990 lawsuits brought by same-sex couples have produced eight "substantive changes" to marriage law.

But Steadman disagreed saying that if New Jersey had something Prop I the marriage issue likely would never have gone to the high court.

"Because of that, the court ordered the legislature to create something like Referendum I or legalize gay marriage in New Jersey," Steadman said.

"We're solving that problem without going to court in Colorado by voting yes on Referendum I. We're going to create that opportunity for couples to have the same legal protection under state law, so there's nothing to complain about in a court of law."

Indeed, looking at the states that have passed domestic partnership registries or civil unions, the one thing that they all have in common is that their doing so has produced a steady stream of lawsuits -- by gay leftists seeking to have the laws overturned and marriage imposed, regardless of the benefits granted.

In short, Pat Steadman is lying. Worse, he's lying in a manner that is patently obvious with a fifteen-second Google search. I mean, really; do you think these people don't know that the gay community's two biggest addictions are tobacco and filing lawsuits?

Both Chris Crain and Andrew Sullivan are positing today that the issue crippling those fighting against antigay amendments and legislation is "self-censorship". Their argument is that we "cannot run" from the marriage fight and must instead focus directly and honestly communicating with the voters on the issue at hand, instead of sidestepping.

Of course, it would help if we showed that we could be honest with voters in the first place.

With the recent New Jersey Supreme Court decision concerning gay marriage, the usual set of howler monkeys are out in full force -- the lunatic left screeching saying that "over our dead bodies" will they accept less than 100% "equality", the nutball right yelling about supporting "perversion", spitting and shrieking at each other like tomcats.

My kingdom for a fifty-thousand-gallon bucket of cold water.

Let us face facts; the only direction in which the "100% marriage" crowd has consistently moved is backwards. If the Federal Marriage Amendment were predicated solely on the number of states that have already banned gay marriage by legislation or constitutional amendment, it would have passed in a landslide. No state has voter-approved gay marriage, and in the one where it exists by court order, gays have used every desperate maneuver in the book, including publishing names and addresses of voters who have signed petitions requesting a vote on the topic, to disenfranchise the electorate and stop gay marriage from even coming CLOSE to a vote.

At the same time, the "perverts don't deserve ANY rights" crowd is consistently losing ground. Attempts to remove nondiscrimination ordinances, impose adoption bans, remove gay teachers, and the like have backfired badly; indeed, some of the most vehement gay rights opposition have even endorsed bills that benefit gay couples in an attempt to hold on to greater relevancy.

Thus, what appears to be happening is that voters, while not willing to throw biology, psychology, and common sense out the window and claim gay couples are the same as straight couples, are also disinclined to view them as completely dissimilar. It would seem that the majority middle sees marriage as what it truly is -- not some Gollum-esque "Precious" whose possession validates your ideology and destroys your enemies, but a boring, nonpartisan, binding contract whose boilerplate works well for some, poorly for others, and only moderately for most.

The reluctance of people to fully endorse gay marriage, in my opinion, has less to do with antigay animus than it does a gut instinct that one should not add a second story to a house with severe foundation cracking. And unfortunately, right now, all they're getting are crooked contractors pushing unrealistic fixes -- the right wing wanting to cement in the basement and the left wanting to put the house on Jell-o.

With that in mind, in the next few weeks, the voters and their representatives will decide, in New Jersey and Colorado, how exactly they wish to handle this issue. The signs, portents, and entrail-readers are all pointing in the direction of limiting marriage to heterosexual couples, but providing some form of legal recognition and benefit for homosexual ones.

Friday, October 27, 2006

Ever since the big reveal of HRC's involvement in the Foley situation, there have been numerous people trying to explain away or minimize the behavior of the blogger in question and what it means for HRC to be associated with it.

An excellent example is this comment posted to Stop October Surprises, which did the gumshoe work that showed the blogger behind Stop Sex Predators was an HRC employee:

I don't understand your blog. Are you saying that the author of theother blog should've covered for Foley? Having the information that he had,didn't he have an ethical obligation to come forward? Why is HRC firing anemployee who blew the whistle on a child predator.

The question is not whether or not the individual should have "covered" for Foley; indeed, I agree wholeheartedly that, if this individual thought it was important, they had an ethical obligation to come forward and make this information public.

When they received it in the first place.We know, for example, that paid Democratic Party operatives had the information in their hands months ago, and were even dropping hints about it. Given the frothing and flailing of the Pelosi Brigade now that any delay in publicly revealing Mark Foley's predilections was akin to leaving Jack the Ripper loose with a Swiss Army knife, why did these operatives and bloggers wait so long to say anything about it?

Because, in my opinion, they were ordered not to for political advantage.

We should all know by now that Democrats are not above homo-baiting if they think it will help them win an election -- or that organizations like HRC will aid and abet their doing it.

In this case, the plan was simple; suppress voter turnout among likely voters by attacking Foley and play up the idea that he had been protected by a "velvet mafia" of gay Republicans and a leadership that was -- gasp! -- not treating him like the danger he was, what with him being a gay person among those young, innocent boys and girls. Play on their homophobia, make it clear that Democrats will protect their cherubs from those raping and pillaging queers, and on Election Day, they'll be in church praying hellfire and damnation on the GOP -- not in the voting booth.

It probably sounded pretty good in the rarefied halls of 430 South Capital SE and the associated broom closet at 1640 Rhode Island. But, like with decisions made in oxygen-deprived surroundings, there were several hallucinations involved.

Anyone who thinks that the Family Research Council, Focus on the Family, Concerned Women for America, etc. were completely unaware that the Republicans they championed on the Hill have a surprising number of 'mo staffers, or that some of them are light in the loafers themselves, is, to put it mildly, an idiot. Of course they know. They've known that for years. And they still contribute enormous sums of money, volunteers, and blessings.

Why?

Because they prioritize other things as being more important.

The single biggest reason that the Dems continue to be the party in the minority is because they are the party of the minority. An astounding number of Americans are religious, with an overwhelming number of them being Christian; with that logical fact in mind, Democrats pander to the militant atheist vote. Well over half of Americans think we have too many abortions in this country, would like to put restrictions on it, and definitely support parental notifications; Democrats talk about how evil and repressive all of those are.

In short, the choice for evangelical and other voters is still the same; a) holding their nose and voting for a party that nominally respects and includes their beliefs, albeit imperfectly and with several lavender-scented offices, or b) not voting and allowing into power a party that is against everything for which they stand, which will impose everything they hate, AND is stuffed to the gills with fruits.

Which do you think they'd choose?

Oh sure, they're going to wring hands, make pious pronouncements, etcetera, etcetera, etcetera; that's what keeps the collections boxes full and the doghouses air-conditioned. But when push comes to shove, thinking you can drive away evangelical voters by revealing that there are gay Republicans, or even that one of them likes teenage boys, is an act of optimism on the order of drilling for oil in your cubicle.

Putting out the information on Foley when HRC received it would have been perfectly defensible and ethical on their part. But instead, they chose to play along with a Democratic plan to stoke homophobia and decrease voter turnout based on completely-flawed assumptions, and have now sacrificed what few shards of credibility and bipartisanship that they had in the first place -- all for what looks like for naught, and with a lovely consolation prize of homophobic rhetoric everywhere.

Not that we don't expect HRC to shoot themselves in the foot regularly; it's just starting to get very tiring when we get nailed as well.

Former Gov. James McGreevey, who resigned after acknowledging a gay affair, said he would tie the knot with his partner if state lawmakers decide to allow gay marriage.

"Marriage would offer the ability to bless our relationship in a committed way," McGreevey, 49, told The New York Times............

Some gay-rights advocates said the decision didn't go far enough. McGreevey, who told The Associated Press last month that he had publicly opposed gay marriage while in office as a way to keep his homosexuality hidden, hailed the ruling.

"I applaud the court's courage," McGreevey told the AP. "I regret not having had the fortitude to embrace this right during my tenure as governor."

I have to admit, McGreevey's gotten good at knowing which buttons activate the brain bypasses wired into most gay activists. Appeal to "commitment", talk all lovey-dovey about your partner, and play to the fantasy that the only reason people don't support gay marriage is because they're really closeted homosexuals -- the old tried-and-true methods, all there.

However, hearing a Democrat claim they voted against gay marriage because they were terrified people would find out they were gay means one of two things -- either the Democratic Party is not as friendly to gays as they would like us to believe, or the dating pool for homosexuals is a majority of the people in both New Jersey and the United States.

I lean towards the former.

And as for "blessing our relationship in a committed way", I think the last paragraph of the article says it all:

McGreevey now lives with Mark O'Donnell, a 43-year-old Australian businessman. Before they could marry, the former governor would have to finalize his divorce from his second wife.

Wednesday, October 25, 2006

“The email exchanges in question between former Congressman Mark Foley and a House page have been in the possession of bloggers and media outlets for some time now. Yesterday, it came to our attention that an HRC employee, hired just last month to work for us in Michigan, was responsible for initially posting these emails on his blog. We investigated the matter, determined that HRC resources had been inappropriately used, and let him go. No one at the Human Rights Campaign, other than this individual, had any knowledge of his activities,” said Brad Luna, Spokesman for the Human Rights Campaign.

Again, as I posited yesterday, this comes as no huge surprise -- but I'm frankly astonished to see HRC confirm the fact.

Next question, though: what do we do with this info?

First off, HRC needs to come clean with this on their website and in a news release. Nothing less. Period.

Second, the media needs to be notified that HRC has admitted that one of their own (now former) staffers is responsible for this mysterious blog.

However, the logical following step is to reveal the name of the staffer in question -- and that's the sticking spot.

That is potentially a huge, HUGE disclosure. Given the links I think this individual likely has to the Democratic Party, several specific Democratic politicians, and the smear campaign of John Aravosis and Mike Rogers, we're talking asteroid impact in terms of potential damage to said individuals, none of whom I would be in the least bit sorry to see get theirs. I have seen firsthand to what lengths these scum will go to harass, harm, and hurt those gay people who disagree with them, and I frankly see no reason to pull any punches.

Until I figuratively look over at the former staffer who did this.

The minute their name is revealed, whoever this person may be, they are totally screwed. Their every move, contact, and word are going to be scrutinized -- and with two weeks before an election, blinded and ripped to shreds as people try to spin and slash them for public advantage. They are going to be called names and have their entire life dissected on every form of media imaginable. They are going to be shunned by people publicly, lest they be tainted as well.

And they're out of a job, with the likelihood that anyone else will hire them quite, QUITE low.

While I want as much as anyone to get confirmation and put the pieces together, it also is patently obvious that this person's career and private life will be blown apart with this kind of disclosure. Thus, I will differ with GayPatriot; as an opponent of outing and attempts to destroy a person publicly with private details, I cannot in good conscience support this person's name being released publicly.

Yes, this is letting the perpetrator off easy.

Yes, this is enabling people who hate gays like me and are willing to do anything to get them fired, socially excluded, or verbally abused as "Judenrats", just to curry favor with the Democratic Party.

I mean, Mike Rogers and John Aravosis TOLD us that HRC staffers were helping with their smear campaigns -- over two years ago.

Both Aravosis and Rogers said they continue to collect information from their network of sources, which include employees of the Human Rights Campaign and Log Cabin Republicans, and plan on outing more staffers and members.

Furthermore, as I've pointed out previously, Joe Solmonese, the current head of HRC, seems to have a charmed existence when it comes to the smear activists, who improbably left a gay man who not only steered hundreds of thousands of dollars to an FMA supporter, but defended her, completely unscathed.

In my opinion, the question was never if HRC was supporting Rogers and Aravosis -- but when, how often, and how much.

After my most recent post on the high regard shown gay conservatives and Republicans by gay liberals and Democrats, it seemed clear that people in the blogosphere were missing out on one of the most delightful and edifying things around -- the verbal love shown to us by these dear, sweet folks on the other side of the aisle.

Hence, our newest feature -- the Kernel of Happiness.

As these little nuggets of gold wash ashore, drift downstream, or fall from the sky, we will publish them here -- to show the world how pleasant, tolerant, and wonderful those who would have us join them in the name of "gay rights" can be.

Thursday, October 19, 2006

As those of you who have been around a bit know, I wholeheartedly and completely oppose outing people or making insinuations about their sexual orientation. It doesn't matter who, where, or why; it's simply not acceptable.

Wednesday, October 18, 2006

One of the common claims made by gay leftists and Democrats is that the reason they so dislike conservative and Republican gays is because we supposedly don't work with them or support the organizations working to repel antigay initiatives and activities.

However, when Mary Cheney, a prominent gay Republican and the daughter of Vice President Cheney gives money and support to an organization working to stop Virginia's anti-gay constitutional amendment from passing, the responses of liberal and Democratic gays are rather entertaining.

All in all, it is abundantly clear from these comments that Mary Cheney will not be accepted regardless of what she does -- and that gay leftists and Democrats would shed no tears if she disappeared or was killed off, by her hand or theirs.

What makes this particularly ironic is the regularity with which individuals like Pam Spaulding and John Aravosis pontificate how stupid and wasteful it is for gays to work with conservatives and Republicans -- who, they allege, will not accept gays regardless of what we do and who would shed no tears if we disappeared or were killed off, by our hands or theirs.

Perhaps they don't realize that, given the choice, we prefer the alleged examples over the clear examples.

Update (31 October): It seems I've just been linked by a commentor from Pam's House Blend, in regards to a post where Pam asks all those "professionally closeted homos in the GOP" how it feels to be "used all over again".

Friday, October 13, 2006

Two weeks since the double entendre known as "the Mark Foley affair" broke, and the usual army of scapegoats, syncophants, and sanity-deprived individuals familiar to any Washington-watcher continue to make their 24/7 parade past the media reviewing stands.

What's been particularly amusing to watch has been the acute outbreak of self-righteousness among gay Democrats, as exemplified in this excerpt (sorry, registration required):

For pure vitriol, it would be hard to top an episode that occurred late last month at a Washington dinner party. The gathering included both well-connected Bush administration and congressional GOP staffers and several Democrats--all gay. Inevitably, politics came up. One Democrat in attendance, a former Clinton White House aide, couldn't contain his revulsion at the gay men working in the service of the enemy. "I ripped into this one guy" who works for the Bush administration, the Democrat says. "I said, 'What you do for a living is hurting me, and my family, and my daughter I have with two lesbians. I personally view Bush as the most corrupt, vile politician in the world, and if you're working for him, to me you're one and the same.' People were horrified." But, he adds, "I refuse to be cordial or friendly or polite to these people. I think they are our mortal enemy. They ask the gay community to indulge them when they want a social life, but when they punch the clock they are trying to tear apart our families. They want it both ways." Even a few weeks later, says another gay Washingtonian who was not present at the dinner, the former Clinton aide's "little screed is legendary."

Now, how interesting is that, when a Clinton administration aide so roundly condemns someone for "hurting (his) family"?

Rep. Mark Foley (R-FL) had a rather creepy email exchange with a young page a while back. I received copies of these emails several months ago, but couldn’t confirm their veracity so I did not report on them.

Which would be exactly the first time in which a lack of confirmation has prevented Aravosis from publishing anything.

So I guess the question is this: if Foley was such an immediate danger to children, why didn't the Dems do anything -- especially when they had the damning instant messages in addition to the emails?

UPDATE: Mike Rogers's public admittance that he was one of ABC's sources AND had access to more than just the emails in question rather strengthens the case that the Dems knew about this well in advance and chose not to act immediately.

Cluelessly, Mike Rogers whines that the DCCC is going through and deleting evidence of his comments on their blog. You wonder if he realizes that he's doing more than anything else to make it obvious that Dems, for all their rhetoric about inaction meaning more children would be molested, were quite OK with leaving children to be molested so that they could break this story at the most opportune time.